Quote:
Originally posted by debaser
I never said it didn't exist, just that it wasn't "military" (though our 120mm rounds are caseless  ). I know about the technology, and also that there is only one production weapon in the world that fires it, and criminals arent very likely to have one (in fact probability=0.0).
|
The number of types of caseless weapons "in production" is a misleading argument: several more are in development; one has even been
tested by the U.S. Army, as well as the German army. Now, given the rate at which technology advances, how long d'you think it'll be before someone gets the bright idea of producing a caseless weapon for the masses?
Quote:
|
Most criminals who would think ahead to buying a weapon that fires caseless ammo could probably figure out that picking up their brass would work just as well...
|
Good news for the dumb ones, then: before long, they won't have to worry about their brass when they shoot someone!
Quote:
|
California has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. They also have the highest rate of gun crime. See a pattern?
|
Two points. One, you claimed that people "don't have guns" in California. Exactly how is this possible if California has the highest rate of gun crime? Two, I've never said that more restrictive is the answer. Smarter, yes. Better-defined, yes. More formative, yes. More restrictive, not necessarily.
Quote:
|
And how do you propose to keep criminals from getting guns? Pass a law?
|
That's traditionally the way you do it in this country, yes. You pass a law to deal with conduct deemed unsafe, or unfit for society. It's quaint, I know, but I prefer it to the alternative. How about you?
On a less flippant note, the whole point is to pass laws that make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and that make it easier for law enforcement to do something about it when they do, and to make the rest of us generally safer in the meantime.
Quote:
|
I was refering specifically to gun education, not general education. There should be mandatory gun safety classes for all students in public schools.
|
Mmmmmm, no. We don't force students to learn to drive, we let them do it at their option, BUT we do require it if they're going to drive on our streets. We have driver's education programs and schools; why not gun education programs and schools? I don't believe in forcing people to learn about guns any more than I believe in taking all the guns away.
As far as your posting of the AWB goes, let's examine a rifle from the hypothetical weapons manufacturer WM, who makes wooden workalikes of Heckler and Koch weapons (which are not mentioned specifically under the ban, so lookalikes and modifications are technically legal). Assume he sells a rifle, called the WM-16, that has no threading for a silencer, a wooden or polycarbonate stock, and no bayonet - it has only the pistol grip. That hypothetical weapon, the WM-16, would be legal under the ban. And it would be every bit as deadly as any of the weapons listed in that ban.
That's what we call a gray area.
Quote:
|
I have yet to see your so called pragmatism suggest any solid course of action that has any hope of working.
|
I'm sorry you feel that way, although I'm compelled to point out that you've got no basis in fact to make that claim - just your own opinion - since some of what I'm talking about has never been tried before.